Henrietta Nat. Bank v. Barrett

• Citation: 25 S.W. 456
• Parties: HENRIETTA NAT. BANK v. BARRETT.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1894
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

25 S.W. 456

HENRIETTA NAT. BANK v. BARRETT.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 5, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Clay county; George E. Miller, Judge.

Action by L. C. Barrett against the Henrietta National Bank. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. K. Swan, for appellant. Templeton & Patton, for appellee.

Statement of the Case.

TARLTON, C. J.

This appeal is from a judgment in behalf of the appellee, against the appellant, in the sum of $1,000. The suit, which was brought on November 18, 1890, is upon a quantum meruit. Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $1,000, alleged to be due him as the reasonable value of professional services rendered by him as an attorney on and after January 1, 1889, at the request of the defendant, and the further sum of $500, paid by him for appellant as costs and expenses. It was averred that the services were performed and the expenses paid in bringing, prosecuting, and defending certain suits in the district court of Clay county, wherein the Henrietta National Bank sought to enforce the collection of a note for $8,000, secured by a mortgage on 15,000 acres of land. The defendant pleaded the general denial and the statute of limitation of two years. He further specially pleaded that any services rendered or money paid were under a written contract entered into between plaintiff and Frank Brown, receiver of the bank, on the 23d day of July, 1888, providing for a contingent fee; that this contract had been litigated and determined in another suit in the district court of Clay county; and that the matter was res adjudicata, the contract being fraudulent and void.

Conclusions of Fact.

On July 23, 1888, Frank Brown, the receiver of the defendant bank, entered into a contract in writing with appellee, whereby a claim of the bank, amounting to about $8,000, and secured by a mortgage on about 15,000 acres of land, was placed under the control and management of the plaintiff. It was agreed that he should have one-half of the land that might be recovered or secured by the prosecution of this claim, or one-half the proceeds thereof. The execution of this contract was not sanctioned by the comptroller of the currency, who appointed the receiver. In a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant upon this contract, and prosecuted on appeal to our supreme court, this tribunal held the agreement invalid, because of want of power in the receiver to execute it, in the absence of authority from any court or from the comptroller of the currency, who appointed the receiver. See Barrett v. Bank, 78 Tex. 222, 14 S. W. 569. It was the understanding between the parties when this contract was made that it was to be approved by the comptroller, and the appellee thought that the sanction of the comptroller had been procured at the time that he began the performance of the services rendered as below stated. He had no information to the contrary until after January 20, 1889. The plaintiff testified that, before he went to work under the contract, the receiver informed him that it had been approved by the comptroller, and directed him "to go ahead with the work." The correctness of this statement, though sharply contradicted by the receiver, we find, in the absence of conclusions of fact by the trial court, to be established by its judgment. Acting under the authority of the receiver, the plaintiff performed a great amount of valuable services in litigation arising out of the prosecution, in various forms, of the claim which had been placed under his...